No, I think heroin addicts are far less dangerous, for a number of reasons.. For one, they usually have access to methadone clinics, which allows them to avoid withdrawal symptoms, preventing them from having the incentive to go out and steal. For another thing, the meth addict psychosis comes largely from the massive sleep deprivation, which is not an issue for heroin addicts. And finally because unlike meth addicts, heroin addicts don't tend to do anything when they're high other than lie on a bean bag.
Here is a nice story that involves the two places where I have spent most of my life. I've lived in the reddest state and the bluest city.. I'm back in OK now, but I think Portland had the right idea with 99% of its drug policy.
I understand your point here, but I still think that meth is a very different animal from alcohol. I actually think one of the biggest things we can do to cut down on the meth problem is to legalize pot. You see, pot is a gateway drug, but not in the way that they make it sound. In order to buy it, you gotta talk to a drug dealer. Guess what drug dealers also stock, and make a much better margin on? Meth.
Also, I think we're also talking crosswise on exactly what to do with it. I want to control the chemicals necessary to produce it easily. Much like piracy, you're not going to stop everyone from doing it. The goal is to make it enough of a pain in the ass that people who aren't completely predisposed to use it won't seek it out.
Meth should be illegal because 99.9% of meth users eventually start stealing or killing to support their habit.
So, you think Minority Report's precrime unit is a good thing? Stealing and killing are already against the law. "Put him in jail because he might steal or kill" is a terrible argument. I'll bet you thought 1984 had a utopian society, too.
I'd ask you if you were 15, but your id shows you couldn't be. Life can't be summed up in dystopian novels. There are shades of grey. Laws exist to protect the public good, not to validate your view that you should be allowed to do anything you want, then pay for any harm you do later. Drunk driving is a great example of this -- you might get home perfectly fine. Or you might kill someone. I'd bet $5 you'd sit there and tell me that you should be allowed to drive drunk, and if you kill someone, you'll have to go to jail. But guess what? Your going to jail isn't going to bring that person back to life. Punishment is not compensation, and because of that we have to have a certain level of public order and perform a cost/benefit analysis. In my estimation, the cost of marijuana prohibition is high and the benefit is negligible (possibly even negative). The cost of meth prohibition is low and the benefit is immense.
I have, and I say you're clueless. I don't know where you got your misinformation, but you might want to do a bit of research. Hint: look for unbiased sources, preferably on a site with an.edu extension. You might also have a look at the wikipedia entry on sociopathy and psychopathy.
Well I have and I've seen pieces of shit steal copper wiring out of houses and kill dogs for fun at 3 am. I'm not going to look for the citations at work, but I've read plenty such studies, and largely what they found is that the sleep deprivation from prolonged meth use causes large amounts of damage to the higher functions of the brain. But the real visceral understanding comes from having to sleep with a weapon beside your bed because the neighbors that robbed half the neighborhood might decide to go for your house next.
Yeah, let's wait until after someone dies to anything about anything. Let's say Billy wants to build a nuke. He should be allowed to have plutonium, right? Then we'll just punish him later if he kills someone with it.
Not sure what your point is, but my point is that all you need to do to eliminate the meth problem is disrupt the supply chain. And unlike cocaine, heroin, etc., meth can be stopped by simply regulating the ingredients necessary to make it. And unlike pot, it's actually harmful enough to make that a worthwhile venture.
Meth should be illegal because 99.9% of meth users eventually start stealing or killing to support their habit.
That's simply collective punishment. Throw the ones who commit crimes in prison (or whatever it is you wish to do with them), but don't punish the rest. It's simply a waste of time, manpower, and money.
No, learn to deal with having to get a damn prescription for sudafed.
I was wrong to state that the meth addicts steal or kill to support their habit.. They steal and kill because meth eats away everything but the base animal instincts, and they essentially steal and kill for fun at that point.
Right! And "Reefer" causes "Madness."
You ever met anyone who did meth more than a few times? Yeah, didn't think so.
Fair enough on the cost of the product itself.. And I think your argument would actually go a long way in regards to something like heroin. I was wrong to state that the meth addicts steal or kill to support their habit.. They steal and kill because meth eats away everything but the base animal instincts, and they essentially steal and kill for fun at that point. Also, unlike heroin addicts, meth users tend to have lots of children to whom they do irreparable harm. If we had a program of "all you can smoke, provided you are permanently sterilized and live in this fenced off area away from people who actually contribute to society", I'll be all for it.
No, mind-altering drugs should be legal because there should be no law against harming yourself
The self-harm argument falls to pieces when you consider that people are not islands unto themselves, and that the actions of one person often have detrimental effects on others. Pot should be legal because its social benefits outweigh the risks. Meth should be illegal because 99.9% of meth users eventually start stealing or killing to support their habit. I wouldn't mind if meth users simply killed their brain cells and then left the rest of us alone, but that's simply not the case.
It's an old strategy. The first instance of this that I can think of is the tactics of the 1800s oil barons, who would sell their oil at a loss until their smaller competitors went under, then jack up the price. I'm sure there are earlier instances of this though.
No matter how you phrase it, your stance is that you don't want to pay taces or be a responsible citizen. I'm not a leftist or rightist either, but I generally think our government should act on behalf of the people it represents, not just the wealthy and/or powerful.
I think what he's saying that libertarianism is just another form of aristocracy, except they cite their success in the rigged 'free' market as the justification for their superiority over the common folk instead of divine right like the old aristocracies claimed.
Okay, we're talking past each other here.. One, I'm talking about customizing their location, event listeners, etc. If that's all done in a draggy-droppy sort of way, then it's hard to organize that information, and setting properties to something besides a constant can be a real pain in those circumstances. At least, that has been my experience in the specific example of Visual Studio. I'm not condemning the use of those standardized widgets, but rather a certain way of using them. The widgets I develop are used in addition to the core library widgets. This too is moot, as our shop primarily does web development using MVC, so there's no dragging and dropping to be done most of the time. And even if there was, my primary job function is to develop libraries, and thus I'm doubly removed from dragging and dropping.
and when I do it's usually coding a special widget in our library for other devs to use.
So that they can... drag and drop it into their projects? What if they want to customize it? I would imagine they're better off coding it themselves.
Yes, because there's never ever any reason to standardize anything, particularly among a group of related projects that require a consistent user experience.
My problem with the drag and drop widgets isn't that it automates work.. I try to automate whatever I can whenever I can. I just don't like the fact that always seems to do it in such a way that, were I to customize something, it's significantly more difficult than if I code it myself. It's really a moot point for me though, as I rarely have to do any GUI coding, and when I do it's usually coding a special widget in our library for other devs to use.
By GUI widgets are you referring to the drag and drop windows forms crap? Because I don't use that. On the other hand, if you're talking about intellisense, that feature is a freaking godsend and has reduced the amount of time I spend looking at API reference manuals to almost zero.
This. Until we start giving PhDs for finding expected results and/or verifying the results of others, we're going to have this problem of research 'exageration'.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, but you forget that the pope only has magic powers when he dons his thinking cap and sits on his special chair.
Was it by any chance Outrageous Audio? It would be hilarious to see that guy from the commercials freak out on somebody.
No, I think heroin addicts are far less dangerous, for a number of reasons.. For one, they usually have access to methadone clinics, which allows them to avoid withdrawal symptoms, preventing them from having the incentive to go out and steal. For another thing, the meth addict psychosis comes largely from the massive sleep deprivation, which is not an issue for heroin addicts. And finally because unlike meth addicts, heroin addicts don't tend to do anything when they're high other than lie on a bean bag.
Here is a nice story that involves the two places where I have spent most of my life. I've lived in the reddest state and the bluest city.. I'm back in OK now, but I think Portland had the right idea with 99% of its drug policy.
wow, you've been following me around for quite some time. it seems someone has a crush on me
I understand your point here, but I still think that meth is a very different animal from alcohol. I actually think one of the biggest things we can do to cut down on the meth problem is to legalize pot. You see, pot is a gateway drug, but not in the way that they make it sound. In order to buy it, you gotta talk to a drug dealer. Guess what drug dealers also stock, and make a much better margin on? Meth.
Also, I think we're also talking crosswise on exactly what to do with it. I want to control the chemicals necessary to produce it easily. Much like piracy, you're not going to stop everyone from doing it. The goal is to make it enough of a pain in the ass that people who aren't completely predisposed to use it won't seek it out.
Meth should be illegal because 99.9% of meth users eventually start stealing or killing to support their habit.
So, you think Minority Report's precrime unit is a good thing? Stealing and killing are already against the law. "Put him in jail because he might steal or kill" is a terrible argument. I'll bet you thought 1984 had a utopian society, too.
I'd ask you if you were 15, but your id shows you couldn't be. Life can't be summed up in dystopian novels. There are shades of grey. Laws exist to protect the public good, not to validate your view that you should be allowed to do anything you want, then pay for any harm you do later. Drunk driving is a great example of this -- you might get home perfectly fine. Or you might kill someone. I'd bet $5 you'd sit there and tell me that you should be allowed to drive drunk, and if you kill someone, you'll have to go to jail. But guess what? Your going to jail isn't going to bring that person back to life. Punishment is not compensation, and because of that we have to have a certain level of public order and perform a cost/benefit analysis. In my estimation, the cost of marijuana prohibition is high and the benefit is negligible (possibly even negative). The cost of meth prohibition is low and the benefit is immense.
I have, and I say you're clueless. I don't know where you got your misinformation, but you might want to do a bit of research. Hint: look for unbiased sources, preferably on a site with an .edu extension. You might also have a look at the wikipedia entry on sociopathy and psychopathy.
Well I have and I've seen pieces of shit steal copper wiring out of houses and kill dogs for fun at 3 am. I'm not going to look for the citations at work, but I've read plenty such studies, and largely what they found is that the sleep deprivation from prolonged meth use causes large amounts of damage to the higher functions of the brain. But the real visceral understanding comes from having to sleep with a weapon beside your bed because the neighbors that robbed half the neighborhood might decide to go for your house next.
Yeah, let's wait until after someone dies to anything about anything. Let's say Billy wants to build a nuke. He should be allowed to have plutonium, right? Then we'll just punish him later if he kills someone with it.
Not sure what your point is, but my point is that all you need to do to eliminate the meth problem is disrupt the supply chain. And unlike cocaine, heroin, etc., meth can be stopped by simply regulating the ingredients necessary to make it. And unlike pot, it's actually harmful enough to make that a worthwhile venture.
Meth should be illegal because 99.9% of meth users eventually start stealing or killing to support their habit.
That's simply collective punishment. Throw the ones who commit crimes in prison (or whatever it is you wish to do with them), but don't punish the rest. It's simply a waste of time, manpower, and money.
No, learn to deal with having to get a damn prescription for sudafed.
I was wrong to state that the meth addicts steal or kill to support their habit.. They steal and kill because meth eats away everything but the base animal instincts, and they essentially steal and kill for fun at that point.
Right! And "Reefer" causes "Madness."
You ever met anyone who did meth more than a few times? Yeah, didn't think so.
Perl is not coming back. Get over it and learn something else.
Protip: 99.9% of the time, when someone says "99.9% of x", they're saying it to illustrate a point, and not to cite an actual statistic.
Fair enough on the cost of the product itself.. And I think your argument would actually go a long way in regards to something like heroin. I was wrong to state that the meth addicts steal or kill to support their habit.. They steal and kill because meth eats away everything but the base animal instincts, and they essentially steal and kill for fun at that point. Also, unlike heroin addicts, meth users tend to have lots of children to whom they do irreparable harm. If we had a program of "all you can smoke, provided you are permanently sterilized and live in this fenced off area away from people who actually contribute to society", I'll be all for it.
No, mind-altering drugs should be legal because there should be no law against harming yourself
The self-harm argument falls to pieces when you consider that people are not islands unto themselves, and that the actions of one person often have detrimental effects on others. Pot should be legal because its social benefits outweigh the risks. Meth should be illegal because 99.9% of meth users eventually start stealing or killing to support their habit. I wouldn't mind if meth users simply killed their brain cells and then left the rest of us alone, but that's simply not the case.
It's an old strategy. The first instance of this that I can think of is the tactics of the 1800s oil barons, who would sell their oil at a loss until their smaller competitors went under, then jack up the price. I'm sure there are earlier instances of this though.
No matter how you phrase it, your stance is that you don't want to pay taces or be a responsible citizen. I'm not a leftist or rightist either, but I generally think our government should act on behalf of the people it represents, not just the wealthy and/or powerful.
I think what he's saying that libertarianism is just another form of aristocracy, except they cite their success in the rigged 'free' market as the justification for their superiority over the common folk instead of divine right like the old aristocracies claimed.
Okay, we're talking past each other here.. One, I'm talking about customizing their location, event listeners, etc. If that's all done in a draggy-droppy sort of way, then it's hard to organize that information, and setting properties to something besides a constant can be a real pain in those circumstances. At least, that has been my experience in the specific example of Visual Studio. I'm not condemning the use of those standardized widgets, but rather a certain way of using them. The widgets I develop are used in addition to the core library widgets. This too is moot, as our shop primarily does web development using MVC, so there's no dragging and dropping to be done most of the time. And even if there was, my primary job function is to develop libraries, and thus I'm doubly removed from dragging and dropping.
and when I do it's usually coding a special widget in our library for other devs to use.
So that they can... drag and drop it into their projects? What if they want to customize it? I would imagine they're better off coding it themselves.
Yes, because there's never ever any reason to standardize anything, particularly among a group of related projects that require a consistent user experience.
Sigh. What happened to the days when nerds would read science fiction without believing that someday it would all be real?
When was that? My dad still complains about not having a flying car or being able to take a flight to the moon.
My problem with the drag and drop widgets isn't that it automates work.. I try to automate whatever I can whenever I can. I just don't like the fact that always seems to do it in such a way that, were I to customize something, it's significantly more difficult than if I code it myself. It's really a moot point for me though, as I rarely have to do any GUI coding, and when I do it's usually coding a special widget in our library for other devs to use.
By GUI widgets are you referring to the drag and drop windows forms crap? Because I don't use that. On the other hand, if you're talking about intellisense, that feature is a freaking godsend and has reduced the amount of time I spend looking at API reference manuals to almost zero.
This. Until we start giving PhDs for finding expected results and/or verifying the results of others, we're going to have this problem of research 'exageration'.